Tax reforms: a new approach

Opinion

Share

All economists agree that a good tax system is one that raises money with minimal distortion to the economy. In Pakistan, the tax system is the main source of many distortions in the economy. We need a fresh approach to reverse the negative role of taxation to achieve higher growth in economy. It is imperative to lower marginal tax rates and broaden the tax base with few, if any, tax exemptions.

The taxation system should be simple and must keep down the cost of compliance and monitoring. Our current system is monstrously complicated, and the cost of complying with taxes is extremely high.

According to the official version, the total revenue collection by the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) for FY 2016-17 was Rs3362 billion. The FBR missed the tax target by a wide margin of Rs259 billion. According to the chairman of the FBR, the shortfall was due to concessions given by the government: Rs111 billion on account of reduced GST on oil products, Rs16.5 billion on fertilisers, Rs11.5 billion due to textile package, Rs28 billion for zero-rating of five export-oriented sectors and relief of Rs2.7 billion on pesticides. The FBR chairman, however, did not mention the leakages in revenues due to corruption and inefficiency. He also did not mention the higher cost of compliance for citizens: 90 percent collection was through withholding. Pakistani policymakers must reduce the cost of collection and reliance on withholding taxes to boost businesses and investment.

The chances of radical tax reforms in Pakistan are very slim as the main stress of the government is on raising money through a higher rate of taxes, rather than using taxation as a social policy tool. Successive governments, military and civilian alike, have never thought of using refundable tax credits as the chief form of income support for the working poor – as is the case in many countries, notably the US. When American politicians want to encourage home ownership, purchase of health insurance or attendance at college, or merely to help a favoured industry, they reach for tax breaks as a tool to boost the economy. There is a need to learn a lot from the Americans on this front. For example, the introduction of alternate minimum tax (AMT) revolutionised the entire American tax system.

In January 1969, the US treasury secretary informed Congress that 155 taxpayers with incomes exceeding $200,000 had paid no federal income tax in 1966. The news created outrage. That year, members of Congress received more constituent letters about the 155 taxpayers than about the Vietnam War. Congress subsequently enacted an ‘add-on’ minimum tax that households paid in addition to regular income tax. It applied to certain income items (‘preferences’) that were taxed lightly or not at all under the regular income tax. The largest preference item was the portion of capital gains excluded from the regular income tax.

Congress enacted the modern alternative AMT in 1979 to operate in tandem with the add-on minimum tax. The AMT is a little-known back-up to the income tax which is designed to ensure that rich Americans don’t avoid paying income tax entirely by claiming too many deductions. It allows fewer deductions than the normal income tax (mortgage interest, donations to charity and a few other things). It is also less progressive, with two rates of 26 percent and 28 percent, levied on incomes above a certain, tax free amount, which in the case of a married couple has long been $45,000. Under the present American law, US citizens (or resident non-US citizens) have to pay either income tax or AMT, whichever is higher.

We must also introduce something like the AMT to tax rich Pakistanis, who at present are not paying any income tax due to excess deductions, reduced tax rates or exemptions such as those on agricultural income, gains on immovable property and shares listed on stock exchanges. In the Pakistani scenario, where the tax base is dismally narrow, the AMT could be used as a vehicle for tax reforms. The AMT can be made more progressive – retaining the most popular incentives of today’s income tax, without bringing in all the more outrageous exemptions.

In 2004, Michael Graetz, a tax expert at Yale University, came up with an innovative way for simplifying the American tax code dramatically. He suggested replacing income tax with the AMT, but with an exemption of $100,000 per family and single rate of 25 percent. With a $100,000 exemption, only 25 million people were to pay income tax. To make up for the lost revenue, Graetz suggested introducing a value added tax between 10 percent and 15 percent. This could shift the tax base towards consumption rather than income, and would thus be friendlier to saving. Marginal rates would be low and the system would be simpler. To retain progressivity and mitigate the impact on the poor, Graetz suggested that poor Americans could get tax relief on their contribution to ‘Social Security’. We should consider this model for Pakistan as well.

Pakistan certainly needs to clean up its tax system. If Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi is really serious about generating revenues and boosting exports, tax reforms are indispensible. He must prepare a bill for immediate withdrawal of all exemptions in tax codes and bring the rich Pakistani under the AMT. The VAT system should be rationalised by reducing its rate to 10 percent with no exemptions. The end consumers should be given a facility to get a refund of two percent on production of evidence of payment of VAT and no question would be posed about the sources of expenses. This will encourage documentation as they will invariably insist for invoices on all the purchases.

The middle-class and poor people should be given tax cuts and benefits of a system of Social Security as is prevalent in all democratic countries.

The writer is an advocate of the Supreme Court and adjunct faculty at LUMS.

All economists agree that a good tax system is one that raises money with minimal distortion to the economy. In Pakistan, the tax system is the main source of many distortions in the economy. We need a fresh approach to reverse the negative role of taxation to achieve higher growth in economy. It is imperative to lower marginal tax rates and broaden the tax base with few, if any, tax exemptions.

The taxation system should be simple and must keep down the cost of compliance and monitoring. Our current system is monstrously complicated, and the cost of complying with taxes is extremely high.

According to the official version, the total revenue collection by the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) for FY 2016-17 was Rs3362 billion. The FBR missed the tax target by a wide margin of Rs259 billion. According to the chairman of the FBR, the shortfall was due to concessions given by the government: Rs111 billion on account of reduced GST on oil products, Rs16.5 billion on fertilisers, Rs11.5 billion due to textile package, Rs28 billion for zero-rating of five export-oriented sectors and relief of Rs2.7 billion on pesticides. The FBR chairman, however, did not mention the leakages in revenues due to corruption and inefficiency. He also did not mention the higher cost of compliance for citizens: 90 percent collection was through withholding. Pakistani policymakers must reduce the cost of collection and reliance on withholding taxes to boost businesses and investment.

The chances of radical tax reforms in Pakistan are very slim as the main stress of the government is on raising money through a higher rate of taxes, rather than using taxation as a social policy tool. Successive governments, military and civilian alike, have never thought of using refundable tax credits as the chief form of income support for the working poor – as is the case in many countries, notably the US. When American politicians want to encourage home ownership, purchase of health insurance or attendance at college, or merely to help a favoured industry, they reach for tax breaks as a tool to boost the economy. There is a need to learn a lot from the Americans on this front. For example, the introduction of alternate minimum tax (AMT) revolutionised the entire American tax system.

In January 1969, the US treasury secretary informed Congress that 155 taxpayers with incomes exceeding $200,000 had paid no federal income tax in 1966. The news created outrage. That year, members of Congress received more constituent letters about the 155 taxpayers than about the Vietnam War. Congress subsequently enacted an ‘add-on’ minimum tax that households paid in addition to regular income tax. It applied to certain income items (‘preferences’) that were taxed lightly or not at all under the regular income tax. The largest preference item was the portion of capital gains excluded from the regular income tax.

Congress enacted the modern alternative AMT in 1979 to operate in tandem with the add-on minimum tax. The AMT is a little-known back-up to the income tax which is designed to ensure that rich Americans don’t avoid paying income tax entirely by claiming too many deductions. It allows fewer deductions than the normal income tax (mortgage interest, donations to charity and a few other things). It is also less progressive, with two rates of 26 percent and 28 percent, levied on incomes above a certain, tax free amount, which in the case of a married couple has long been $45,000. Under the present American law, US citizens (or resident non-US citizens) have to pay either income tax or AMT, whichever is higher.

We must also introduce something like the AMT to tax rich Pakistanis, who at present are not paying any income tax due to excess deductions, reduced tax rates or exemptions such as those on agricultural income, gains on immovable property and shares listed on stock exchanges. In the Pakistani scenario, where the tax base is dismally narrow, the AMT could be used as a vehicle for tax reforms. The AMT can be made more progressive – retaining the most popular incentives of today’s income tax, without bringing in all the more outrageous exemptions.

In 2004, Michael Graetz, a tax expert at Yale University, came up with an innovative way for simplifying the American tax code dramatically. He suggested replacing income tax with the AMT, but with an exemption of $100,000 per family and single rate of 25 percent. With a $100,000 exemption, only 25 million people were to pay income tax. To make up for the lost revenue, Graetz suggested introducing a value added tax between 10 percent and 15 percent. This could shift the tax base towards consumption rather than income, and would thus be friendlier to saving. Marginal rates would be low and the system would be simpler. To retain progressivity and mitigate the impact on the poor, Graetz suggested that poor Americans could get tax relief on their contribution to ‘Social Security’. We should consider this model for Pakistan as well.

Pakistan certainly needs to clean up its tax system. If Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi is really serious about generating revenues and boosting exports, tax reforms are indispensible. He must prepare a bill for immediate withdrawal of all exemptions in tax codes and bring the rich Pakistani under the AMT. The VAT system should be rationalised by reducing its rate to 10 percent with no exemptions. The end consumers should be given a facility to get a refund of two percent on production of evidence of payment of VAT and no question would be posed about the sources of expenses. This will encourage documentation as they will invariably insist for invoices on all the purchases.

The middle-class and poor people should be given tax cuts and benefits of a system of Social Security as is prevalent in all democratic countries.

The writer is an advocate of the Supreme Court and adjunct faculty at LUMS.